Home > Research & Funding > Grant Development and Management Resources
NIH uses five explicitly-stated review criteria, published in the NIH Guide Notice NOT-OD-05-002, published October 12, 2004, for all unsolicited research applications. Applications solicited through RFAs will use the review criteria in the announcement. Fellowship (F) application review criteria are listed in the announcements. Review criteria are the same for both paper and electronic submissions. Back to TopWhere can I get a list of all of the study sections that review applications submitted to NIH? It is useful to review study section purposes (in description) and rosters (click on the acronym) to determine the best match for your application. The Center for Scientific Review attempts to honor applicant requests for assignment to a study section, however, CSR makes the final decision based on a number of factors. Back to TopIs there a direct link to the nursing science study sections? Applications submitted for primary assignment to NINR may be assigned to any appropriate NIH study section; however, if your application is assigned to either of the nursing science study sections, the names and sites are as follows. Nursing Science: Adults and Older Adults Study Section [NSAA] http://cms.csr.nih.gov/PeerReviewMeetings/CSRIRGDescription/HOPIRG/NSAA.htmNursing Science: Children and Families Study Section [NSCF] http://cms.csr.nih.gov/PeerReviewMeetings/CSRIRGDescription/HOPIRG/NSCF.htmBack to TopWhere can I get a list of the members of the study sections that will review my grant? See response to this question: Where can I get a list of all of the study sections that review applications submitted to NIH? Back to TopWhat can I do if I do not agree with the review of my application? NIH has an established appeals process for applicants who think that some aspect of the handling or initial review of their grant applications has been inappropriate. Applicants may dispute the results of an initial peer review based on an error in the review process, such as reviewer bias, factual error, or reviewer conflict of interest, but not a difference of scientific opinion. Applicants who have concerns about the review of their submission should first discuss the issues with the Institute program director assigned to the project. The issues of concern are almost always differences of scientific opinion and the investigator’s time may be more productively spent in revising and resubmitting the application. Program Directors, either alone or with Scientific Review Administrators (SRAs), usually resolves issues with applicants. The Institute’s Advisory Council reviews cases that cannot be resolved, but rarely overturns initial peer review results. In most cases, Council recommends that applicants revise and resubmit their application. The appeals process is triggered when an applicant submits a letter detailing specific concerns about the review of the application to the institute/center program director. Detailed information regarding this process, including grounds for review, can be found in the NIH Guide, November 21, 1997. It should be noted that differences of scientific opinion that may occur between investigators and reviewers may not be contested through these procedures. In addition, communications from investigators consisting of additional information that was not available to the reviewers are not considered to be appeals. Finally, appeals of receipt and referral issues regarding applications not yet reviewed should be directed to the Referral Office in the Center for Scientific Review. Back to TopWhat are my chances of being funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research? NINR funds about one out of four or five R01 applications it receives, an average comparable to that for the rest of NIH. In preparing an application for submission to any of the NIH institutes or centers, your primary challenge is to stimulate the enthusiasm of the study section that evaluates the scientific merit of the proposal. Competition for research funding is intense, and it is not unusual for an application not to be funded on its first submission. As with most creative endeavors, biomedical research requires not only good ideas but also perseverance. An application that is not submitted, however, will have zero chance of funding. Back to TopWhat should I do if my application is not funded? On May 7, 2003, NIH issued a new policy regarding the time limit for resubmission (formerly amended) applications. Applicants are no longer required to submit revisions within two years of the original submission date. The policy reminds investigators, however, that a lengthy hiatus can mean significant changes in the field that may affect a resubmission. If your application is not funded, you should carefully consider the reviewers' suggestions contained in the summary statement. You are encouraged to make a phone appointment to discuss the review concerns with your Program Director. You may then want to revise the proposal accordingly and resubmit it. Directions for preparing resubmitted applications are contained in the application instructions. NIH policy limits the number of resubmissions to two. Therefore, if your application has not been funded after the original submission and two subsequent resubmissions, you may want to consider submitting a different study. It is advised that you consult with your NINR Program contact during this process. The May 2003 policy describes what constitutes a new proposal: A new application following three reviews is expected to be substantially different in content and scope with more significant differences than are normally encountered in a resubmitted application. Simply rewording the title and Specific Aims or incorporating minor changes in response to comments in the previous Summary Statement does not constitute a substantial change in scope or content. Changes to the Research Plan should produce a significant change in direction and approach for the research project. Thus, a new application would include substantial changes in all sections of the Research Plan, particularly the Specific Aims and the Research Design and Methods sections. Funded Investigators What is the meaning of the term Just-in-time and how does it relate to my application? See the NIH grants policy statement about the pre-award process and just-in-time requirements. NIH uses just-in-time procedures for certain programs and award mechanisms. These procedures call for limited information (e.g., a budget justification and a biographical sketch) to be submitted with investigator-initiated applications and allow for a possible NIH request for additional information, including information concerning other support, when the application is under consideration for funding. Just-in-time procedures also allow an applicant to defer certification of IRB approval of the project’s proposed use of human subjects, verification of IACUC approval of the project’s proposed use of live vertebrate animals, and evidence of compliance with the education in the protection of human research participants requirement until after completion of the peer review and just prior to funding. Applications in response to RFAs also may be subject to these procedures. The RFA will specify the timing and nature of required submissions. Back to TopHow do I obtain a no-cost extension? A no-cost extension can be used to extend your grant's project period one time up to 12 months without additional funds by simply informing your grants management specialist of your plans through your office of sponsored projects. See this NIAID site for details. What is required for a second no-cost extension? For a second no-cost extension request, a letter, signed by an authorized institutional official, must be received by the appropriate Grants Management Specialist, Office of Grants and Contracts Management, no later than 30 days prior to the grants Project Period End Date. The correspondence must explain the need for an additional no-cost extension, document the activities to be completed, specify the amount of remaining grant funds, and include a detailed description of the proposed use of unexpended funds (either a detailed budget or narrative description). Updated IACUC and IRB approvals must be provided if required. The request for the second no-cost extension must be evaluated and approved by the Office of Extramural Activities and, when granted, is for purposes other than completion of manuscripts. Additional no-cost extensions beyond the 2nd will not be considered.Back to TopWhat is a competing continuation? A competing continuation is now called a renewal . A renewal application extends a project period that would otherwise expire for one or more grant budget periods; these grant applications are peer reviewed in a regular review cycle and compete with others for funds. A renewal is a continuation of the original study but adds significantly to the science by extension and advancement of the original aims. New populations can be added, along with additional aims that extend the study but not to replace the original aims. Back to TopWhat should I do when my grant ends? There are two websites that have essential information about grant management, including grant closure. The first site contains questions and answers about grant management and includes NIH websites related to grants policies: http://www.ninr.nih.gov/ResearchAndFunding/GrantDevelopmentandManagementResources/ManagingninrfundedgrantsFile.htmThe second site is an NIH Grants Policy site that includes discussion of grant closure issues and other potential activities occurring at the end of a grant. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/part_ii_7.htm#closeoutBack to Top
Email This
Bookmark This
Printable View
